I know its kind of the cool trend to hate Roger Goodell, but personally I think he's doing a hell of a job.

Really good (and long) article here, from ESPN's Outside The Lines, that helps you understand the man better, imo:

As part of his mission, Goodell often tells audiences a favorite story: More than a century ago, before there was an NFL, President Theodore Roosevelt saved football with the blunt force of his visionary leadership. In 1904, 18 student-athletes died playing the game, mostly from skull fractures. A devout fan, Roosevelt convened the coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton to a White House meeting. The innovations that were adopted -- the forward pass, the founding of the NCAA -- helped propel an endangered game into the modern era.

The history lesson not only places Goodell in Roosevelt's shoes and the current worries about player safety into a historical context, it also portends one of his greatest fears: An NFL player is going to die on the field.

Yeah, I was sent that by a Goodell-hater at work yesterday, and he was kind of surprised by it. I'm not a lover of Goodell, but I think he's doing a lot of things the right way for what his job is. I think a lot of people think his job is something that it isn't, and that's a good part of the "argument" many Goodell-haters have.

Last edited by RolandDeschain on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Agreed. Goodell is employed by the owners of 32 franchises. During his tenure revenues are up and the overall popularity of the NFL is at an all time high. Anyone who says he is ruining football isn't paying attention, or rather, they are, and as long as you keep consuming the product, you're not truly displeased with it. Until people stop watching, he isn't doing anything detrimental to the league regardless of any football fan's opinion on the man.

Sorry, Goodell has little to do with the NFL's surge in popularity. That train's been moving for awhile.

I never liked him, for a variety of reasons. But, they're just not Goodell's doings either.

1) I hate how the NFL has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing by retired players.

2) I hate the utter domination of the NFLPA (that's the reps fault though)

3) I hate him acting as Judge Dredd on any and all issues, with no eye towards any due process or presumed innocence

4) I hate the fact he's making the game safer by legislating certain hits, but wants to add two more games. That's pure hypocrisy.

5) I hate how it took one of the NFL's favored franchises getting a questionable call against them, before he really moved on bringing in the refs. If the Hawks, Bengals, Texans, Chargers a not favored franchise would've lost due to the fail-mary, it would've NOT caused him to buckle.

6) MNF, last year, the Chiefs v Steelers. If the Steelers win, next week’s SNF game against the Ravens is for 1st place. What happens? The Chiefs win, but actually lose due to refereeing that makes SBXL look grade-A game management. One TD was called back a good 15 seconds after the play, which made the NFL’s fluffers, ESPN MNF Booth, SQUIRM outwardly.

Pe, there are a number of problems with most of the points you just listed.

pehawk wrote:1) I hate how the NFL has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing by retired players.

Are you aware of what measures, if any, retired players took before resorting to suing the league? Also, do you agree that if in 15 or 20 years it turns out that sitting in a chair at a desk all day causes major health problems, that you're entitled to sue your former employer after you're already retired to get more money in your 401k? Perhaps your grandpa should go sue Ford tomorrow for having a leg amputated in a car wreck because he got thrown from his vehicle due to cars not having seat belts when he was a young man, yes? To be clear, I'm not saying the league should do NOTHING extra for retired players; what I'm saying is, the instant you sue an entity like the NFL, now they have to be on the defensive and give away NOTHING because of how it might look at trial. A good attorney on the other side will look at any handout the NFL gives to retired players right now as implying guilt on behalf of the league, and trying to get off on the cheap. Assuming the league's the big bad guy in this is just ignorance, IMO.

pehawk wrote:2) I hate the utter domination of the NFLPA (that's the reps fault though)

Unions. Ugh.

pehawk wrote:3) I hate him acting as Judge Dredd on any and all issues, with no eye towards any due process or presumed innocence

Why? The CEO of any company you work for can walk in and fire you for any number of reasons, and you're out of a job; or suspend you sans pay for a month, etc. Police departments do it to cops that step out of line. You need to present your case for not allowing Goodell to do the same thing, since you clearly believe he shouldn't be able to.

pehawk wrote:4) I hate the fact he's making the game safer by legislating certain hits, but wants to add two more games. That's pure hypocrisy.

No, it's not. That's like saying it's pure hypocrisy to improve seat belt and air bag safety while designing cars to go ever faster. The two are not mutually exclusive; you just want them to be. There's no reason he shouldn't be able to try and lower the injury rate by 15%, and increase the number of games by 15% as well, if that's what the owners of the league want.

pehawk wrote:5) I hate how it took one of the NFL's favored franchises getting a questionable call against them, before he really moved on bringing in the refs. If the Hawks, Bengals, Texans, Chargers a not favored franchise would've lost due to the fail-mary, it would've NOT caused him to buckle.

You're right; probably not. Welcome to public relations. However, knowing how bad officiating is sometimes on a regular basis in this league, I think it's important to break up the current "standard" of NFL officiating in some way.

pehawk wrote:6) MNF, last year, the Chiefs v Steelers. If the Steelers win, next week’s SNF game against the Ravens is for 1st place. What happens? The Chiefs win, but actually lose due to refereeing that makes SBXL look grade-A game management. One TD was called back a good 15 seconds after the play, which made the NFL’s fluffers, ESPN MNF Booth, SQUIRM outwardly.

I hate what he's doing to the game, but I know he's just protecting the league's business interests. I can understand that. I just wish there was someone in the NFL's leadership that was concerned with protecting the integrity of the game as well.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:I hate that in the name of player safety a player will get fined $7500 for unavoidable contact and in the name of corporate sponsor safety a player will get fined $15,000 for wearing the wrong socks.

Honestly, the only thing I like about Goodell was his performance during the 2011 lockout situation. The owners needed to win that battle, and they basically won it in time for the 2011 season to start. The NFL is better off today than it was before Goodell for that reason alone.

Other than that, I think he's an ass. Even the good things he stands for are clearly motivated by money or financial liability.

Those are my personal beefs with him, my opinion; I understand Roger and your stances on it. He is the CEO and has those specific rights you eluded too. Its just slimey to me though, period.

Also, this isn't a new thing for me. I disliked the lawyer in him before it was hip to do so. An old editor on this very site wouldn't allow me to voice that then, IIRC. “Then” meaning about 3 months into his tenure.

Now, the good thing for us Seahawks fans, the Seahawks are about to become a "Packers West" for the NFL. Wilson's the most marketable player I've seen in a LONG time. Roger's slime will work in our favor, soon.

I was referring to the power of the NFL image, and how the media plays a gigantic, nearly dictating role, in it; specifically, how it relates to market coverage of various NFL teams. You think if the media gave fair and equal air play to all 32 NFL teams, and those teams brought in approximately equal money, that Goodell would favor teams unfairly? Not likely. Everything is based on money, and the media controls the image. I would say more on this and elaborate further, but it's time to leave work; do you understand what I mean?